EXHIBIT LIST Reference No: HOC/00153 Petitioner: Jack Brereton MP Published to Collaboration Area: Wednesday 30-May-2018
Page 1 of 21
No Exhibit Name Page
1 P340 Location Map.pdf (P340) 2
2 P341 Stoke services.pdf (P341) 3 - 9
3 P342 Traffic.pdf (P342) 10 - 18
4 P343 Stafford-Stoke-Macclesfield.pdf (P343) 19 - 21
HOC/00153/0001 ³A ³B ³C ³D ³E ³F ³G ³H ³I ³J
³1 ³1
³2 ³2
³3 ³3
³4 ³4
³5 ³5
³6 ³6
³7 ³7
³8 ³8
³9 ³9
³10 ³10
³A ³B ³C ³D ³E ³F ³G ³H ³I ³J HS2 Ltd accept no responsibility for any Legend High Speed Two circumstances, which arise from the Petitioner Location Plan reproduction of this map after alteration, amendment or abbreviation or if it is issued in Phase 2a hybrid Bill alignment July 2017 Stoke-on-Trent South Constituency Boundary ! CREWE Reference Drawing part or issued incomplete in any way. I Cutting Hybrid Bill Limits Registered in England. Registration number 06791686. Registered office: 2 Snowhill Queensway Birmingham B4 6GA Scale at A3: 1:41,250 Embankment © Crown copyright and database rights 2018 Petitioner OS 100049190 Jack Brereton MP 0 420 840 1,260 1,680
Petition number Metres P340 BIRMINGHAM ! P2A-000153 Doc Number: P2A-HS2-HY-MAP-A000-000097 DHOC/00153/0002ate: 11/05/18 HS2 Services to Stoke
Petition No. HS2-P2A-000153
P341 (1) HOC/00153/0003 The Stoke Connector Proposal
The “Stoke Connector” proposed by Stoke-on-Trent City Council (SoTCC) is a new 7.6km spur connecting the HS2 route to the classic network. This would leave HS2 via a grade-separated junction to the south of Stone. The connection would then cross the River Trent flood plain on viaduct, and join the classic network to the south of Barlaston with a grade-separated junction.
P341 (2) HOC/00153/0004 Stoke Connector
In the November 2016 Command Paper the Secretary of State set out the position on the Stoke Connector as follows: Given its high cost and low benefits, the Government has decided not to pursue the Stoke Connector option further and will not be including this in the Phase 2a hybrid Bill. However, the Government can see the potential benefits of serving Stoke-on-Trent in support of the wider development plans of the Northern Gateway Development Zone and the ambitions of the Midlands Engine. The Secretary of State is therefore asking HS2 Ltd to take forward more detailed work on train planning for options to serve Stoke via Handsacre Junction, including operational feasibility in both 2027 and 2033.
As agreed at the Bill’s second reading, the addition of a spur, like the Stoke Connector, falls outside the scope of the Committee: 1. The Committee shall treat the principle of the Bill, as determined by the House on the Bill’s Second Reading, as comprising - (a) the provision of a high speed railway between a junction with Phase One of High Speed 2 near Fradley Wood, in Staffordshire, and a junction with the West Coast Mainline near Crewe in Cheshire, (b) in relation to the railway set out on the plans deposited in July 2017 in connection with the Bill in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons, its broad route alignment, and (c) the fact that there are to be no new stations on, or additional spurs from, the railway mentioned in sub-paragraph (b); and those matters shall accordingly not be at issue during proceedings of the Committee.
P341 (3) HOC/00153/0005 Delivery of the Stoke Connector
• Delivering this additional infrastructure would have involved additional impacts to the local area, including on locations that would not previously have been affected by the HS2 route. These impacts reflect the need to cross the River Trent flood plain. Particular impacts would have included: • Major landscape and visual impacts from high embankment and viaduct past Meaford Conservation Area; • Crossing Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area (note that the proposed Phase Two route includes several crossings of this canal; and • Moderate to major setting impacts on listed buildings associated with Meaford Hall. • We estimate that the delivery of the Stoke Connector, including grade-separated junctions and associated realignment of NR infrastructure, would have cost in the region of £450m (including Optimism Bias (OB) and efficiencies).
P341 (4) HOC/00153/0006 Journey Times
• The stated aim of Stoke-on-Trent City Council is to achieve a sub-60 minutes Stoke-on-Trent journey time, with the aim of getting the best return they can from the building of HS2 to support their plans for growth. • Currently journey time from London to Stoke varies between 1 hr 24 min and 1 hr 28 min, as one service per hour calls at Milton Keynes whilst the other runs non-stop to Stoke. • In the other direction, a similar pattern applies, with journey times from Stoke to London Euston of 1 hr 31 min and 1hr 34 min respectively. • The proposed Stafford – Stoke classic compatible service will reduce this by around 13 minutes. • Whilst the Stoke connector would have had a sub 60 minute journey time, analysis demonstrated a poor business case.
P341 (5) HOC/00153/0007 Comparison between Stoke Connector and Proposed Stafford-Stoke Service
• The Stoke Connector would have had very high capex (c£450m infrastructure and rolling stock) and opex of £921m, with reduced revenue*. • The primary reason for choosing the Stafford-Stoke service is the ability to speed up Liverpool/Crewe services which generates significant benefits.
Route Option Benefits (£m) Capex (£m) Opex (£m) Revenue (£m) BCR
Stoke Connector 8 449 921 -8 Low BCR 2 tph Handsacre via 1481 90 622 802 Very High Stafford
*The costs of the additional infrastructure are in Q1 2015 prices and include land and property, connections at either end onto the HS2 network and the WCML at Meaford, and take account of optimism bias (40%) and value engineering.
P341 (6) HOC/00153/0008 Stoke-on–Trent Aspirations
Increasing Stafford-Stoke services to 2 trains per hour (tph) • Analysis suggests that demand for an additional service between London and Stoke (via Stafford) is low as the existing proposed 1 train per hour will be less than half full. • A second service would require additional rolling stock of c£90m as well as interventions at Stoke station. • It should also be noted that the availability of just six platforms at Euston during Phase One and Phase 2a is a limiting factor. • For these reasons there is unlikely to be a strong business case for 2 trains per hour to serve Stoke.
Improvements to Stoke Station • Stoke station is owned and operated by Network Rail and we do not anticipate a need for interventions at the station as a result of HS2. However we will continue to engage with Network Rail and Stoke-on- Trent City Council to discuss operations in 2027 and beyond.
P341 (7) HOC/00153/0009 Traffic
Petition No. HS2-P2A-000153
P342 (1) HOC/00153/0010 Management of traffic during construction (1) • The Promoter has been working with Staffordshire County Council as the local highway authority to address concerns about HS2 construction traffic routes. • Under the planning regime established under Schedule 17 to the Bill the nominated undertaker will be required to seek approval from Staffordshire County Council for the use by large goods vehicles of any routes to and from a working or storage site, a site where material will be re-used, or a waste disposal site (save where the number of movements per day is 24 or less). • This is explained further in HS2 Phase 2a Information Paper B2: The Main Provisions of the Planning Regime.
P342 (2) HOC/00153/0011 Management of traffic during construction (2) • In accordance with the draft CoCP, Local Traffic Management Plans (LTMPs) will be prepared in consultation with the local highway authority and other relevant parties prior to the start of construction to address local transport issues. • This is explained in HS2 Phase 2A Information Paper E3: Management of Traffic During Construction. • With regard to works on the M6, the Promoter will work with Highways England and Staffordshire County Council as the local highway authority to ensure that, as far as reasonably practicable, the works relating to the Proposed Scheme do not interfere with other highway schemes and that HS2 works are co-ordinated with those of the highways authorities.
P342 (3) HOC/00153/0012 Highways England – Smart Motorways Program (SMP)
Highways England (HE) has set out the aims of the SMP: • A technology driven approach to the use of our motorways being rolled out across the country • Increase capacity • Relieve congestion • Make journey times more reliable • Cost around a third of widening schemes • So Highways England can improve more motorways
* This information provided by Highways England regarding their phasing of work for the M6 Smart Motorway is indicative and subject to change as the work progresses. This is HE’s proposed programme and has been shared with HS2 in advance.*
P342 (4) HOC/00153/0013 Smart Motorways Programme – Junctions 13-16
• The stretch of the M6 between Stafford and Stoke on Trent - Friday peak day = 127,000 vehicles • 28km length • Upgrading to ‘all lane running’ - permanent conversion of the hard shoulder as a live lane for traffic to use • Increases capacity by a third from 3 to 4 lanes • A key part of smart spine from London to North West • Scheme started March 2018 • Scheme predicted to be complete March 2022
* This information shared on behalf of Highways England regarding their phasing of work for the M6 Smart Motorway is indicative and subject to change as the work progresses. This is HE’s proposed programme and has been shared with HS2 in advance.*
P342 (5) HOC/00153/0014 A34/Beaconside (1) – Assurance given to Staffordshire County Council
Additional construction traffic route to reduce the impact upon Beaconside 15. (a) The Promoter will, subject to the conditions in paragraph (b), require the nominated undertaker to undertake an environmental assessment of a construction route for Large Goods Vehicles between the Yarlet South Cutting Satellite Compound and the junction of the A51 and the A518 via the A34 Stone Road and the A51 as shown in green for indicative purposes on the attached plan (the “Additional Construction Route”) to ensure that the use of the route creates no new significant adverse environmental effects. (b) The assurance in paragraph (a) is subject to: i. the Promoter being satisfied that the Additional Construction Route is deliverable within the existing powers of the Bill and without the need for any additional land from that identified on the deposited plans as within the limits of land to be acquired or used for the purposes of the Proposed Scheme; ii. the Additional Construction Route not requiring the protection of other assets and being capable of being used for Large Goods Vehicles or the condition of the highway not unreasonably deteriorating as a result of its use as an Additional Construction Route; iii. the carrying out of a satisfactory environmental impact assessment of the effects of the Additional Construction Route and the inclusion of the Additional Construction Route in a Supplementary Environmental Statement to accompany the Bill; and iv. the approval of the route by the relevant planning authority under Schedule 17 as a lorry route, as required.
P342 (6) HOC/00153/0015 A34/Beaconside (2) – Additional construction route
P342 (7) HOC/00153/0016 M6 Junction 15 – A500/A519 and A519/A5182 (1)
The Promoter has offered the following undertaking to Staffordshire County Council:
“3.5 Subject to clause 3.6, the Promoter will use reasonable endeavours to promote an Additional Provision to confer upon the Promoter the necessary powers to provide for the construction and operation of the following permanent highway works: 3.5.3 works to the junction of the A500/A519, the junction of the A519/A5182 and the part of the A519 Newcastle Road between the two junctions”) involving: 3.5.3.1 carriageway widening to provide left turn lanes at the A500/A519 roundabout; 3.5.3.2 widening of A519 Newcastle Road link between the A500 and A5182 junctions; 3.5.3.3 a new signalised junction at the A519/A5182; and 3.5.3.4 widening of A519 and B5038 junction approaches and shown indicatively on the drawing at Appendix 5 (together “the A500/A519 and A519/A5182 Works”) and the parties recognise that the exact scope of the works in this clause 3.5 will be developed as part of the relevant Additional Provision 3.6 The inclusion of the A500/A519 and A519/A5182 Works in the Additional Provision referred to in clause 3.5 is subject to the Promoter being first satisfied that Highways England has given its approval to the construction of the A500/A519 and A519/A5182 Works as proposed in the Additional Provision.”
P342 (8) HOC/00153/0017 M6 Junction 15 – A500/A519 and A519/A5182 (2)
P342 (9) HOC/00153/0018 Slides on Stafford-Stoke- Macclesfield Service
Petition No. HS2-P2A-000153
P343 (1) HOC/00153/0019 Extract from Crewe Hub Consultation Response
“We recognise there may also be a case to extend this [Stafford-Stoke-Macclesfield] service to Manchester Piccadilly, as well as to look at other options to serve not just Stoke-on-Trent but other destinations with either HS2 services or new direct WCML services to London. The WCP operator will be asked to examine the potential for such services, alongside meeting stakeholder aspirations for other improved local and regional services, recognising the limitations of rail network capacity in areas not directly relieved by the HS2 network. There is currently not anticipated to be capacity on HS2 for a second Stoke-on-Trent service each hour (and the business case for such a service is unlikely to be strong). The HS2 current modelling assumes that Stoke-on-Trent continues to receive intercity services via the WCML.”
P343 (2) HOC/00153/0020 Current Service Constraints
Crewe - The conventional railway line from Crewe to Stoke is single track so has severe capacity constraints. Currently 2 local trains per hour use this route each way and Network Rail have advised that no additional trains can be accommodated without adding a second track. It is therefore not possible to send the Stoke service to Crewe without significant and costly infrastructure enhancements or removing existing services. Liverpool - If the HS2 train were to go on from Stoke to Liverpool, it would have to go via Crewe, which means the same constraints as outlined above. Similarly the conventional line between Crewe and Weaver Junction (where the line to Liverpool leaves the WCML) will be at capacity with the planned HS2 services plus existing services, so no additional trains could be accommodated. Manchester - The route to Manchester is already severely constrained and given the projected growth in the region, there is no spare capacity between 2027 and 2033 for an additional service from Stoke to Manchester. The capacity released by Phase 2b of HS2 may alter this position and we will keep this under review.
P343 (3) HOC/00153/0021